« The GOP Doomed Detroit. And We Wont Forget | brbuchwal's Blog | Elections in Ghana Promise Change and Inspire Hope »
Is Warren Worth It?
I wrote a few weeks ago about the media's overblown response to Obama's centrist cabinet appointments. The media seemed to think that liberals were furious at Obama, when they were maybe peeved or disappointed. Many liberals understand Obama's need to appoint people with experience who appeal to a wide cross section of the population in order to maximize his political capital.
But Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration on January 20 is a symbolic blow to women, gays and the pro-choice and pro-gay liberals who support them.
It's clear Warren was chosen in an attempt to bring Christians (and even conservatives) into Obama-mania. And despite the unfortunate message that the choice sends to liberals, I think it is politically shrewd. But the central question is, will Barack Obama gain enough with Christians and conservatives to compensate for the support he will lose from the left?
Powerful liberal organizations like the Human Rights Campaign are decrying this decision as "genuine blow to LGBT Americans." Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Despite the political benefits to Warren giving the invocation, I agree that it is a bad choice that sets the stage for some serious disappointments from Obama on abortion and gay rights. But I'm hoping that that disappointment is only symbolic and restricted to inauguration.
Because when it comes down to it, the Warren choice means nothing. After all, Obama is not the sole decider of who gives the invocation. And it would be much more serious if he had appointed him Secretary of State or Attorney General or as the next Justice to the Supreme Court. But that's ridiculous and its clearly not going to happen. I trust that Obama's pandering to Christian conservatives will not spill over into any policy decisions.
In a later Andrew Sullivan post:
Before we will see what the choice of Warren means for the big picture of Obama's Presidency, Obama will lose some credibility from his base. Long term, I hope that he'll surround himself with more liberals and make some serious progressive policy choices. But when it comes down to it, we knew all along that we were electing a moderate.
But Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration on January 20 is a symbolic blow to women, gays and the pro-choice and pro-gay liberals who support them.
It's clear Warren was chosen in an attempt to bring Christians (and even conservatives) into Obama-mania. And despite the unfortunate message that the choice sends to liberals, I think it is politically shrewd. But the central question is, will Barack Obama gain enough with Christians and conservatives to compensate for the support he will lose from the left?
Powerful liberal organizations like the Human Rights Campaign are decrying this decision as "genuine blow to LGBT Americans." Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Warren is a man who believes my marriage removes his freedom of speech and cannot say that authorizing torture is a moral failing. Shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now.
Despite the political benefits to Warren giving the invocation, I agree that it is a bad choice that sets the stage for some serious disappointments from Obama on abortion and gay rights. But I'm hoping that that disappointment is only symbolic and restricted to inauguration.
Because when it comes down to it, the Warren choice means nothing. After all, Obama is not the sole decider of who gives the invocation. And it would be much more serious if he had appointed him Secretary of State or Attorney General or as the next Justice to the Supreme Court. But that's ridiculous and its clearly not going to happen. I trust that Obama's pandering to Christian conservatives will not spill over into any policy decisions.
In a later Andrew Sullivan post:
I think the choice of Warren is almost certainly designed, in fact, as a unifying move - and it is a signal that Obama has every intention of reaching out to Christianists who have some liberal leanings on poverty, the environment, and heterosexual HIV and AIDS. (Check out the last time Rick Warren reached out to gay people with HIV or AIDS.) I understand where Obama's coming from, and I don't think this is an inherently bad idea. Building such a liberal Christianist coalition is something I saw coming, and sadly see no way to avoid.
Before we will see what the choice of Warren means for the big picture of Obama's Presidency, Obama will lose some credibility from his base. Long term, I hope that he'll surround himself with more liberals and make some serious progressive policy choices. But when it comes down to it, we knew all along that we were electing a moderate.
Advertisement
I absolutely do not understand the brouhaha over Rick Warren giving the invocation at the inauguration.
This is not a slap in the face to anyone, and those who think it is would be well served to adjust their attitudes.
We are all Americans. Obama has said over and over that he wanted to be the President for all of the people of the United States, not the President of the Democratic Party. The Christians in this country are not going to go away, nor is the gay and Lesbian population, but attitudes on both sides can be changed. If this is not true, then we might as well give up now, we're screwed.
What is the point of going to all the trouble to elect a man who gives us such hope that this can be a different country, if all you really wanted was someone who was going to keep the polarization going, just from your side this time?
Somehow, some way, we have to come to a place where we start building some trust between the factions. If Obama can't do it, it can't be done.
But we have to give him time to do it, in HIS way. We elected him to be him, not someone else. If people thought he was pretending to be someone he isn't to get elected, they are going to be disappointed.
Attitudes don't change overnight. As people get to know one another, fear dissipates. Obama is trying to introduce people to each other. He is attempting to show that people from different persuasions, different walks of life, different attitudes, can come together, work together, begin to have empathy for each other. They may never completely embrace each other, but they can come to a place where they can peacefully co-exist.
I can see it already. My niece, a very conservative Christian, saw Obama speak at the Aids Forum at Saddleback Church, Rick Warren's church. She was so impressed with him that she not only voted for him, but changed affiliation, became a precinct captain and did everything she could to get him elected. She got past her feelings about gays and abortion to do it. I'm sure there are many others who did the same thing.
Every single time people from either side refuse to budge, refuse to try to see the other side's point of view, refuse to try to find some common ground on which to begin to repair the damage, we get further from the time when we can put all this ugliness behind us.
Give him a chance to make this work. Trust him. I believe he has a plan, a big picture. Let him unfold it. Quit 2nd guessing every move he makes.
Quit keeping score. Be patient.
December 18, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still, your comment deserves its own post. I feel exactly the same way about Warren. I even wrote a little open letter at Dag. I was going to post it at TPM too, but there are already a slew of Warren posts so it seemed like overkill. But, if you're interested:
http://dagblog.com/politics/rick-warren-its-only-prayer-love-god-336
December 18, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cosign.
December 18, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto!
Still, you are coming into your own! First, you were affected by the thinking of the left. You've allowed yourself to question your political views and your evangelical brethren. Now you're saying.... wait a minute folks, let's all examine our assumptions.
I happen to agree with you. And with Orlando, at least what I've read above.
It's his inauguration. And he's trying to include everyone. He's trying to teach us things and to unite the country.
Amen!
December 18, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, O...I was considering it, but with your encouragement, will do it! BTW thanks for the mention on dagblog...Loved your post, as well.
December 18, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a heads up, O...I made the same comments as you on another blog (Loki's, I believe) about Rick Warren's salary and good works...I will probably incorporate them in my post and didn't want you to think I was stealing your stuff!
December 18, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
ok the post is up...thanks for the encouragement!
December 18, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree, still. This is the guy we voted for, doing what he promised he'd do. If people thought Obama was going to pursue a partisan agenda, they weren't listening very carefully.
December 18, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama isn't Jesus Christ. Voting for him was not an act of faith, it was a political calculation.
December 18, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Voting for him was not an act of faith."
So much for all that "Hope" bullshit. Thanks for your cynicism.
December 18, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, Obama IS Jesus Christ. So are you. So am I. If the teacher is competent, eventually the student becomes the teacher. There are some deluded people who will tell you that Jesus was the
Son of God, but you're not. Jesus explicitly disagreed. If the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Vedas, the Tripitaka are right (and they are), then you were created in the same instant as everyone and everything else. The difference between you and Jesus is time. Jesus has already seen who He is. You have yet to see it. But the conclusion is unavoidable. You ARE the Holy Son of God. Fear of God--of being devoured by Love--is what obstructs us. Fear is the opposite of Love. But Love has no opposite.
December 18, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
devoured by love
As you say....
December 19, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is the Left giving Rick Warren so much power? If he gives a prayer at the inauguration, will it be the end of the LGBT movement? The end of your rights? NO. Seriously, was anyone listening to Obama during the campaign? He wasn't joking when he talked about inclusion and inclusion means everybody - even those you don't agree with or respect. And even those you despise. There's the argument that the gay vote helped put him in office - yeah, so what?. The election is over, Obama should not ignore the 300 million people in this country the way Bush did because they didn't support him. No matter what you think of Warren, you have to admit that he has a huge following and not just of Evangelicals. And this uproar is also hypocritical. Obama went to Rev. Wright's church for 20 years and basically viewed him as family. When the Right tried to say that all of Rev. Wright's views are Obama's views, the Left defended Obama fiercely. "No, no, no" - you said, "Obama can disagree with his pastor! No one agrees with their pastor all the time" - you said. This was the argument from the Left even though Obama knew him for two decades. And I agree, but where is this reasoning with Warren? All of a sudden the story is that Obama has turned on the gay community. It's a slap in the face to all the groups you listed in your post. How does allowing Warren to give a single prayer mean that Obama has abandoned his supporters, but 20 years with Wright doesn't mean Obama hates America?
December 18, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
EXCELLENT points.
December 18, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with that too, Still!
December 18, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am with you on this and I wish it would just go away. He didn't appoint the guy to HHS.
December 18, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wright doesn't offend me. Warren does.
December 18, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think all the points made above are great and part of a really helpful discussion.
You're right, in the grand scheme of things, the choice of who gives the invocation is close-to-meaningless. But Barack Obama could have gone out of his way to find a minister with serious clout in the Christian community who does not have an anti-gay, anti-abortion history.
December 18, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
he could have gone out of his way to find a muslim or jewish person without anti-gay or anti-abortion baggage to deliver the invocation as well.
December 18, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did. Joseph Lowery is giving the benediction. However, Obama wanted to represent both of the major ideological viewpoints, and as it so happens, 61% of the country is "anti-gay." The question is whether it's better to actively dampen or stoke the culture war. The last twenty years, however, should have taught advocates of LGBT rights that the culture war itself is the greatest impediment to their goals.
December 18, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I think the point others make about how this is merely an invocation and not a cabinet appointment are certainly well taken, but I just don't see how this choice was worth the angst it is creating. This was just an issue that didn't need to be created. It almost seems like he goes out of his way to jab at the left sometimes. I understand Obama is not a liberal; I knew that before I voted for him and voted for him anyway. But he is a Democrat, and I wish he would stop trying to act like he isn't. He could have run as an independent but he didn't; he ran as a Democrat. I don't think his lack of liberalism means liberals should be publicly jabbed at. Where's the "inclusion" in that?
I am a die-hard Obama supporter, as my comment history shows. But this festival of kissing the ass of the right wing is growing thin with me. I am tired of all the controversy.
As a woman, this pick bothers me. Warren does not believe women deserve equal protection under the law (which is to say, he is anti-choice). I would prefer Obama reward people who SUPPORT the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment with the invocation, not haters who want to repeal the 14th Amendment.
This pick also bothers me because it shows that maybe Obama just doesn't get how upset liberals are over Prop 8. Honestly, if Prop 8 had failed I think this pick would be less offensive. But to pick this guy a month and a half after the passage of Prop 8? You can say "fuck you" to someone without actually using the words, and if I were LGBT I would take this as a "fuck you," in light of what's gone on since Nov. 4.
This choice was a bad one. It's not as though I will stop supporting him, but this was a bad choice.
December 18, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am a die-hard Obama supporter, as my comment history shows. But this festival of kissing the ass of the right wing is growing thin with me."
Why did you support him? Was it at least in part because he promised to heal the partisan divide and bring the country together? How do you suppose he could do that while simultaneously excluding those you disagree with? Obama's approach is turning out to be far more vast and generous than many of his supporters were expecting. Tough shit for us, huh? Because he's going to be who he is whether we approve or not. Did you vote for him because you wanted him to be a left-wing version of Bush? Or did you vote for him because you hoped he would bring the country together? Rick Warren represents a large swath of America. Would you simply murder them and kick their bodies into a hole? Or are you willing to recognize that your disagreement and disapproval of them IS the divide Obama promised to bridge?
December 18, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's challenging us all to grow. Growth is painful.
Darn it! :-)
December 18, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, darn it is right. What the hell were we thinking? The best times of my life were when I was in deep pain. When Death was at my door and I was forced to push myself beyond what I thought I was capable of. It's miraculous. And it's the only way. Just ask Lux. He knows it. I know it. Life and Death are with us in every moment. And choosing between them is our only real choice. The weird part is that they both require extreme effort. Choosing to live is a habit that we must cultivate. And choosing to live is choosing to abandon what hurts us. And intolerance hurts us.
We can change the world we live in, but we can't pick and choose among its elements. It's an all-or-nothing proposition.
December 18, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Namaste, reb.
December 19, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: If we aren't capable of teaching them through example, then no one is. Do you believe in tolerance? Then teach it. BE it.
December 18, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, hrebendorf, this is an outrageous response to my comment. It seems you have never read my comments or you wouldn't have made it. I have been one of the strongest critics on this site of people who have criticized him, unfairly in my view, over his cabinet picks. I have never wanted him to be a left wing version of Bush, and if you think I do you simply never read my comments. I am all for the big tent, but I would like liberals to be in it also. And I am not advocating the exclusion of anyone. Make no mistake, this is a REWARD to Warren, not merely an effort not to exclude him. This gives Warren a major dose of cred he doesn't deserve. Am I really to believe there are no men or women of the cloth who could have done the invocation who don't happen to hate EVERYONE who isn't a white Christian man? Really?
Supporting Obama does not mean refusing to recognize that he is capable of making mistakes. He is human, no?
But I forgot, dissenting opinion isn't allowed at TPM...
December 18, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dissent isn't the issue here. Tolerance is.
December 18, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, because the religious right has been so cruelly ignored the last eight years. Been denied a seat at the table. Been dissed by Bush. Right.
December 20, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's keep one thing in mind: Warren's invocation will be 30-60 seconds long. Let's put the "outrage" in perspective.
December 18, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
He already has cred with his followers, though I'm sure many of them are pissed because he will be at the inauguration. Just like many Obama followers are mad. Common ground, as Obama talked about, is the key. We could all find reasons to hate one another if we wanted to. But whats the point? How does that unify us? Intolerance breeds intolerance. Should I spit in your eye because you spit in mine, even if I detest eye spitting? Or do I hold true to my values and try to have a little class by going the extra mile and reaching out a hand and try to get this country moving again.
December 19, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reb is pointing beyond Obama and beyond Warren. To our own inner work.
We'd prefer to rage. Let it go.
December 19, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's one thing to respect differing opinions and agree to disagree. It's an entirely different thing to give a hate monger like Warren a place of honor at the inauguration.
Personally, I don't think there should be a religious invocation at a government function, which is what the inauguration is. That goes for Congress too. Remember that whole separation of church and state thing? Let the Obamas and anyone else who wants to pray do it in private, or invite Rick Warren into their home, or go to church before or after the ceremony. I'm sick of so-called Christians telling me I'm not a true American because I don't believe what they do.
I know it's a losing battle but I said it. Damn me all the way to hell. At least I'll have good company there.
December 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeez, Deb, who accused you of not being a true American because you don't believe what they do?
Everyone who is getting all up in a snit about the separation of church and state misses a fundamental point. The founding fathers never intended that this government have nothing to do with God...(we are endowed by our Creator unalienable rights, etc, etc...) What it wanted to avoid was the establishment of a national religion. They wanted to insure that we all have the ability to worship (or not) as we chose. Like it or not, this country is founded on Judeo-Christian values. The government was designed to govern a God fearing people. There were assumptions made by the founding fathers that people had morals and values based in religion that would guide their lives. Our laws reflect these values.
Attempting to get rid of God in this country is going to be a difficult (and I would contend, unwinable) battle.
December 18, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who says "people are getting into a snit" over separation of church and state, clearly doesn't care about it and probably wants no separation. Screw that. There are fewer things more important than separation of church and state.
I wonder how magnanimous and overjoyed you'd be right now if Obama had brought an Orthodox Rabbi and a strong conservative Muslim Cleric up to give the prayers?
December 18, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why wonder? You evidently think you're omniscient and have no problem informing people what they believe (often to their surprise).
December 18, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly do care, and I want just what the founding fathers wanted...no national religion, but an adherence to the Judeo-Christian values the country was founded on.
December 18, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong again. You've bought into the Jesus cult bullshit. The Constitution is the law of the land and there is no mention of god, no mention of Judeo-Christian values anywhere in it. It is a throughly secular document.
December 18, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not into damning... and besides I don't believe in hell.
As far as religious invocations at national events, I myself am more in favor of religion being private. On the other hand I honestly am more bothered by the national anthem at sports events than by a short prayer at an inauguration.
(ok... now I'm gonna get knocked about by the sports fans!)
Actually, if I stop and think about it, I'd love the idea of Obama getting every possible blessing for the near-impossible task he's undertaking.
I think we can't rule people out just because of one stand they've taken. One issue. He's mistaken, in my view and the view of many, about gay marriage. And he's not on the side of history here - or the overall message of Christ.
I say - it's Obama's inauguration. He gets to make certain calls. I doubt there's any clergy person who would have suited everyone.
December 18, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with TheraP on everything with one exception:
TheraP, if there is no hell, where are we going to put Cheney?
December 18, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question. Ok.... who can we put him with that would feel like hell?
December 18, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
rendered to a secret gulag would do nicely, methinks.
December 18, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always wondered what Turkey was doing in NATO.
They really have nice prisons. No kidding. I saw a movie on it.
December 18, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to admit I find the contrast between this and your other linked post a little weird. Between the two it seems like you're saying:
Crappy choice of cabinet positions: Not worth abandoning Obama over
Crappy choice of guy to go on stage to perform a pointless function at a ceremonial event: Worth abandoning Obama over
Shouldn't cabinet appointments be more important than choice of entertainers at the inaguration?
December 18, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate your good question. The answer is yes, choice of cabinet members is much more important than the choice of inagural entertainers. I guess I meant for this post to be more on the side of arguing that the Warren choice is unimportant.
From above: "when it comes down to it, the Warren choice means nothing."
The reason that I had a more visceral reaction to Warren than Jones or Gates is because I find some of his past comments extremely offensive and I think that Barack Obama could have easily found another minister with clout in the Christian community to give the invocation. This would have had similar political benefits.
But there were clear political benefits to picking Gates and Jones that might not have been fulfilled by other appointments.
Once again, thanks for the insightful question.
December 18, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
All right, I am sorry if I misunderstood you then.
And having a more visceral reaction to Warren than the cabinet picks is absolutely understandable, I'm sure it was like that for all of us.
December 18, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Warren is a tool. Obama is bringing Warren to the White House so that Obama can express his beliefs in opposition to Warren. Check the post about Obama saying he is a fierce supporter of GLBT rights and equality. He may not be ready or willing to agree with gay marriage, but the GLBT agenda just reached the moon with that comment from the PE, and in typical American fashion, as soon as Americans get the moon, we groan about not getting to Mars.
December 18, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's clear Warren was chosen in an attempt to bring Christians (and even conservatives) into Obama-mania."
I don't believe the choice is that cynical. I think Obama believes what he says he believes: that we've got to bring all the parties to the table and find the common ground. We're trying to heal a rift here. We won't do it by vilifying and excluding and pointing fingers. I think the reason Obama picked Warren is because Warren represents an important part of America. You can't make these people disappear. The best we can hope for is to find the places where we agree and where we understand the need for dialog and compromise.
Obama said during the campaign that he would meet with our enemies without precondition. This is proof that he meant what he said. If people can't handle Rick Warren giving a 30-60 second invocation, how are they going to deal with Obama initiating diplomatic relations with the truly evil people of the world?
We need to understand that everyone deserves to live and everyone deserves to be heard. Even people we disagree with. If we can't come to terms with that, we don't deserve to call ourselves liberals. Remember? We're supposed to be the good guys. We're supposed to be the tolerant ones. We're supposed to be the adults.
December 18, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're supposed to be tolerant of the intolerant? Seems to me the intolerant win that game. So count me among the intolerant. I have no tolerance whatever with fundamentalist faith for profit windbags being given the biggest bully pulpit of them all. Obama can meet with Warren till the cows come home, but he is not required to honor him and his views or help sell his book.
December 18, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only people that are helping Warren with his book sales are the gay community and the Left. Not that he needs any help of course, but I will check Amazon over the nexty couple of days to see if he rises. Cha-ching!
December 19, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"We're supposed to be tolerant of the intolerant?"
Yes. Absolutely. Because tolerance is a basic tenet that we believe in and are willing to fight endlessly to defend. And if you abandon your principles in certain circumstances, then they're not principles--they're just a sham.
It's worth remembering that hate and intolerance always arise out of fear. The intolerant deserve our pity, our understanding and our intolerance. They do not deserve to be treated the way they treat us. If we act like them, we ARE them.
December 18, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, of course, that should have read:
"The intolerant deserve our pity, our understanding and our tolerance." But you already knew that.
December 18, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you, reb. :)
December 18, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you, TheraP. In fact, let's just bless us all, shall we? Bless our friends and bless our enemies. Bless the whole goddamned, fuck-up human race. Let's just do that, OK? (I know you already have, TheraP.)
December 18, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. Amen. Amen.
December 19, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we disagree there because tolerance isn't a particular value of mine. I do value freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom from fear. I do not tolerate the intolerant acting to deprive anyone of their rights or forcing them to live in fear. I'm conflicted on the gay marriage issue, but I'm not conflicted about trying to hack up the Constitution by denying legal equality to one class of people. I do not tolerate that and I do not want someone who believes in acting to hack up the Constitution on matters of reproductive privacy or the equality of gay people speaking on behalf of my party at the Inauguration.
December 18, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freedom and tolerance are inseparable. Your argument is semantic.
I'm a Buddhist, so I have sympathy for the Rick Warrens of the world because I know that I have been Rick Warren in a past life. We grow and progress and then we die. And then we grow and progress again. But at some point, we are graced with the ability to SEE where we have been. And from that point on, we can no longer write anyone off as irredeemable because we know that we ourselves were there once. To judge another is to judge yourself. If you could see the oceans of tears you have cried in your uncountable past lives, you would do everything in your power to make this life your last turn on the Wheel. And before you can leave this mortal coil, you must forgive everyone and everything that you have ever come in contact with. There is no other way.
December 18, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not free to injure another and while I must forgive those who injure me that does not mean I must stand idle while they continue to injure others.
December 18, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You see yourself as a body. It's not true. We are spirit. Our physical selves are not important.
December 18, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think you're a defender of righteousness--just like the wingers. The fact is, righteousness doesn't require you.
December 18, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
hrebendorf, 18 December 2008:
hrebendorf, 23 June 2008:
Apparently, principles, tolerance, gentleness, sympathy and the rest are only operable, and relevant, some of the time. Usually when politically expedient in furthering the interests of a particular politician.
Is that what the Buddha meant by causes and conditions, or conditioned reality, bunnykitty? And btw, have you read up on "right speech" lately?
December 26, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the most part, I think this has been a very productive and fair discussion.
I am a little surprised, though, by how many people on this site have been extremely against the idea of liberals criticizing Obama. Granted, you are all right that the invocation really is not much of a big deal. But I've been hearing a rebellion against any comment that hints at Obama criticism.
Generally, I think that Obama's decisions have been very good since he was elected. But we should be comfortable criticizing this President-elect who we have rallied behind for so many months if we think he falters. In the wake of Prop 8, choosing Warren to give the invocation was insensitive to the gay and pro-gay community. As I've said above, there are many popular Christian ministers without the anti-gay rhetoric who could also bring Christians into the fold (and I mean that both because of the political opportunity and the genuine desire for inclusion).
December 18, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking for myself, I am not against anyone criticizing Obama. I'm against the over-the-top out of left field statements that are being made. People are upset that Warren will be there -fine. Warren has said some terrible things about segments of the population - fine. Then here comes the Kanye moment - Obama doesn't care about Gay people! He's turned his back on you, Obama's betrayed you, he's caving to the right and giving his base (the ones solely responsible for his election don't cha know.) the finger. One article stated that Obama is trying to make up for Warren by having a gay marching band - because gays love a good march. What the Hell!? And this article was on the WaPo website! Another went on to say that Warren will be setting the tone for Obama's Presidency - Since when did the person giving the invocation have so much power? Why not give the same power to the other pastor Joseph Lowery?
December 19, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who disagrees with the decision to invite Warren and who is sharply critical of it, I co-sign on this completely. Criticize, disapprove--and move on. A sense of perspective is badly needed by many.
December 19, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
[More to add]: By all means criticize Obama, but take this into account: Obama is not simple minded - he thinks and feels deeply, sees the big picture, thinks far ahead and appreciates input from others. Some of the reasons offered about why he's doing this and what he thinks he can get from it does not fit with how he comes to make his decisions. It is not the same old politics - do you think Bush would have the balls to reach out to someone his base might go crazy over? He is not doing this to piss off the Left on purpose - because that would be politics as usual. He is not excluding his supporters - After watching both conventions and all the rallies, how can anyone say that Obama is not inclusive. That's a freaking disgusting lie and anyone saying that should be ashamed of themselves.
December 19, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
But it is politics as usual. It's Clintonian politics (remember who he had give the invocation at his inauguration). Whether it's a sop to the right or a kind of "Sister Souljah" moment, we've seen this movie before. It has not served Democrats well in the past -- certainly it did nothing to bring the religious right into Clinton's camp. I don't know that this shows that Obama isn't inclusive, exactly. He seems to be quite inclusive of certain kinds, but only certain kinds, of bigotry -- the kind espoused by Rick Warren, say, as opposed to the kind espoused by David Duke or Louis Farrakhan. You can make statements equating homosexuality with pedophilia, incest and polygamy, for example, and still be invited to give an inaugural invocation for the Obama administration. I'm guessing you could not equate Judaism with devil-worship, for example, and receive a similar invitation -- even if you later told well-known Jewish singer Matisyahu that you "regretted your choice of words."
December 30, 2008 4:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
NO! Like most people I don't remember who gave the invocation at Clinton's ceremony and I don't care. All I remember is that Maya Angelou was the poet.
December 30, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink